Crystallizedcarbon (talk | contribs) →Pete Lowe: Unsigned |
→Health of Donald Trump: new section |
||
Line 537: | Line 537: | ||
I would appreciate your thoughts on this new article. Very simply he does not seem very notable except for recent news events. Perhaps at the very least it deserves a "Recentism" tag, if not speedy deletion.--[[User:PaulinSaudi|''Paul, in Saudi'']] ([[User talk:PaulinSaudi|talk]]) 17:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC) |
I would appreciate your thoughts on this new article. Very simply he does not seem very notable except for recent news events. Perhaps at the very least it deserves a "Recentism" tag, if not speedy deletion.--[[User:PaulinSaudi|''Paul, in Saudi'']] ([[User talk:PaulinSaudi|talk]]) 17:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
:There was already a deletion discussion open for that article. Please see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Chambers (Mayor of Carbon Hill, Alabama)]]. --[[User:Crystallizedcarbon|Crystallizedcarbon]] ([[User talk:Crystallizedcarbon|talk]]) 17:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC) |
:There was already a deletion discussion open for that article. Please see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Chambers (Mayor of Carbon Hill, Alabama)]]. --[[User:Crystallizedcarbon|Crystallizedcarbon]] ([[User talk:Crystallizedcarbon|talk]]) 17:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
== [[Health of Donald Trump]] == |
|||
My concern is three-fold: |
|||
#the article has raised concern as being a Coatrack, an attack page and/or POV Fork. The entire ''Mental health'' section is based on opinions and speculation with claims of mental illness and dementia, most of which were made by his detractors/opposition, and presented as generalizations instead of being directly attributed to the person who made the claims as required by BLP. |
|||
#the material is UNDUE, and appears more as gossip than encyclopedic information. There is far too much coverage of unfounded claims of dementia and other speculative mental issues/personality disorders which were made by observers who never actually examined him whereas the actual medical exams have proven otherwise, and have debunked the claims. Why keep such nonsense in the pedia? |
|||
#in keeping with MOS, we should at least try to maintain some form of consistency with section titles and encyclopedic content. Good models to follow are the articles of former presidents. For example, the mental issues published by RS regarding Hillary Clinton & Bill Clinton. The inclusion of the material was handled properly, kept to a minimum and neither have standalone articles that focus specifically on their health as does Trump. I'm of the mind the article should be nominated as an AfD-merge. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D"><sup>Atsme</sup></span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Atsme|<small>Talk</small>]]</sub> [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 19:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:48, 6 June 2019
Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
---|---|---|
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.
Additional notes:
| ||
Arvin Vohra
- Arvin Vohra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are several incomplete or out of context quotes on this page, which is the page for the potential Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2020. Examples:
1. Rather that quoting the original person, quotes are coming from people quoting the person. The original quotes are easily accessible in the articles referenced on the page. I have fixed one of these, but there seem to be quite a few. 2. Opening sentences of satirical articles are placed as if serious, without including relevent information of the rest of the article. 3. Relevant information missing, literally including political views! Why are a candidate's political positions missing? These are easily available through project votesmart and other sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.195.214 (talk) 02:29, March 17, 2019 (UTC)
RfC: Category:Climate change deniers
(I don't know where this should go, but I went with this board because it relates to the BLP policy.)
Category:Climate change deniers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) In December 2015, this category was deleted as a result of a CfD and a parallel discussion at BLPN (Archive 231). There was consensus to delete the category on grounds of being "contentious", but was this decision appropriate? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Depends on what you mean, its clearly true it is conscientious, but that (in and off itself) should not be grounds for deletion. The problem would be inclusion, and that maybe grounds for deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Having waded through much of the prior discussion, the only valid difficulty in having such a category AFAI can see, is the name. This is one of those situations (like pro-life/pro-choice) where the commonname is unfortunately somewhat 'loaded'. I obviously agree with Slater above that inclusion criteria need to be clear and might be difficult to enforce, but that in itself is not a reason to NOT have the category.Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- When I started the BLP discussion I put a notification on all affected BLPs and pinged all participants in the CfD, and I explained what event had caused me to start it. The BLP participants were Peter Gulutzan MastCell Masem N-HH Prhartcom RevelationDirect JBL NorthBySouthBaranof TPX KarasuGamma M.boli Niteshift36 Milowent Anythingyouwant JRPG Jonathan A Jones alanyst Bonewah Zaereth Jess Bluerasberry Ssscienccce Marcocapelle agr Collect Softlavender Ryk72 AusLondonder Govindaharihari Sphilbrick Guy Macon Mangoe The Anome. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging me. I suppose this is related tangentially to post-1932 American Politics, from which I am indefinitely topic-banned by User:NeilN (who has not been around to respond to my unbanning request at his user talk), but I do stick with what I said before about this category, FWIW. Cheers! Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Opposed to "denier" category. Denier is often flung as an insult, it sounds like the person is being accused of having a psychological problem, i.e. in denial. That makes it a BLP issue. The other problem is that there is no clear definition, you can find people with opinions all over the map labeled "deniers." Bjørn Lomborg for example appears in somebody's list of Top 10 Climate Deniers. What he denies are the economic benefits and urgency of addressing climate change. In my own practice I've stopped using the term except for a few unambiguous cases, since "denier" too often means somebody who fails the speaker's purity test. Thanks for the ping, Peter Gulutzan, and thank you for being a fair-minded and generous-spirited person in Wikipedia discussion. M.boli (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support restoration but it would be very recommendable to add "activist" or something similar that stresses the definingness of the characteristic. So Category:Climate change denial activists or Category:Climate change scepticism activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Your suggested "activist" has caused me to re-think my opposition. The inclusion criterion–what people would have in common–would be opposition to addressing climate change. I still don't like the "denier" label, but you have have captured a crisper definition of what would make this a useful category. M.boli (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose anything with "denier" in it. It is a term invented by the opposition specifically to imply that it is like Holocaust denial. Using a loaded category that the proponents of a position use is nothing new; both "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" were chosen to imply that the opposition is against choice or against life -- and we use the more neutral and descriptive Anti-abortion movement and Abortion-rights movements. Climate change denial is not only loaded, but it is a term used only by detractors. Nobody calls themselves or their group Anti-life, Anti-choice or Climate change denial. (Strange that we disambiguate Anti-life as a pejorative term, but Anti-choice redirects to Anti-abortion movement. Seems a bit POV to me.) Oddly enough, Holocaust denial is used by many holocaust deniers, who see it as an accurate description based upon them (correctly, in their view) denying that Hitler killed millions of Jews. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Actually very few holocaust deniers self-describe thus (as the page will confirm). 'Historical revisionists', 'truth-tellers' or simply 'historians' is how they self-describe. It's a detail, but the idea that we can't categorise people by terms used by their critics is not borne out. There are other good reasons for using something other than the rather crude term 'denier' IMO though. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I should point out that in some places Holocaust denial is a crime, and the fact that many holocaust deniers have in fact lost libel actions about being called a holocaust denier. The courts (in many cases) have said these people are holocaust deniers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Actually very few holocaust deniers self-describe thus (as the page will confirm). 'Historical revisionists', 'truth-tellers' or simply 'historians' is how they self-describe. It's a detail, but the idea that we can't categorise people by terms used by their critics is not borne out. There are other good reasons for using something other than the rather crude term 'denier' IMO though. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support restoring - the term is used extensively by sources, hence not "POV". Of course whether or not it is included in a particular article can be POV. That does not make the term unencyclopedic or not useful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not getting involved in this again. —烏Γ (kaw) │ 09:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose "Denier" is a pejorative term, not merely descriptive, and open to interpretation. Our article on Climate change denial defines it as "... part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions." That is very broad and subjective. Who decides what doubt is unwarranted, for example? Are people who say it may already be too late then to be labeled climate change deniers based on the last prong of the definition? In addition we do not have a good way to cite sources for inclusion in a category, and BLP demands strong sourcing for controversial claims. And who is important enough to be included? Does the category cover every politician who has a Wikipedia article and is on record as expressing doubt about the reality of human-induced warming or has opposed measures to stop it? That might include most members of the U.S. Republican party and quite a few on the growing European right. That would make the category too broad to be useful. The decision to remove this category was correct and should stand.--agr (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support in principle I recognise the sentiments of those who object to the word 'denier', despite it being a commonly used term - however it shouldn't be beyond us to find a) a more neutral descriptor b) to establish objective criteria for inclusion and c) as with all cats, inclusion criteria should include that this is a significant defining feature of the individual, which is covered in the text of the article in some depth. I endorse that this would be a useful cat and am somewhat surprised that it was deleted.Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I never thought this category was a BLP concern worth much consideration. If someone is of the opinion that climate change does not exist, why would this category addition be considered anything but simply descriptive, if not positive? The primary reason we fret about this is not because of the use of the term denier, but because we think it labels such people as having significant deficits in knowledge and/or cognitive abilities. Surely we can come up with something like Category:Flat Earth proponents that would get consensus?--Milowent • hasspoken 13:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that you can spend all day searching and fail to find a single peeson who is labeled a climate change denier and is of the opinion that climate change does not exist. You will instead find the following (listed in order from most unreasonable and unscientific to most reasonable and scientific)
- [1] Conspiracy theorists who think all climate scientists are lying (but who, in general, accept that the climate changes from natural causes).
- [2] People who don't deny the existence of climate change but believe that the magnitude is smaller than the climate scientists say it is.
- [3] People who don't deny the existence or magnitude of climate change but believe that human activity is a smaller factor than the climate scientists say it is.
- [4] People who don't deny the existence or magnitude of climate change or how big a factor human activity is but believe that it is beneficial instead of being harmful.
- [5] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that we are on the brink of a naturally-caused ice age prevented only by human-caused warming.
- [6] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that geoengineering can reverse human-caused climate change.
- [7] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that humans can adapt to changing climate.
- [8] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that the computer simulations are flawed. Pretty much everyone agrees that previous computer simulations made predictions that turned out to be wildly wrong. People in category 8 believe that the same is true about current simulations. Climate scientists say that they have fixed the problems and the simulations are now accurate. But of course they said that the last time too.
- [9] People who don't deny [see list above] and accept the climate change simulations but reject the economic simulations -- again pointing out that no economic simulation has ever been able to successfully predict the future economy.
- [10] People who don't deny [see list above] but doubt that increasing the size and power of the government is the solution, arguing that those with the most money generally get the government to do what they want done.
- [11] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for North America and Europe to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on Asia, India, Africa, and South America
- [11] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for the US to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the world.
- [13] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for California to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the country or the rest of the world.
- [14] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for Los Angeles to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the state, country or world.
- All of the above views are regularly called "climate change denial" in the popular press. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think you have strengthened Marcocapelle (talk · contribs)'s point above. The common thread is do nothing about climate change. A category tying them all together could have utility. (Your assertion about not finding any flat-out deniers is wacky however.) M.boli (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- They also often switch from one of those positions to the next when too many people see that the first one is untenable. This is because they only care about doing nothing about climate change and not about the reason for doing nothing - it is only a pretend reason anyway. The underlying cause is market fundamentalism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Guy Macon, there are gradiations like this all over wikipedia regarding categories. Climate change is not unique. We are tying to create categories that help our readers, and no category is perfect. Indeed I just found out about and wrote Orlando Ferguson after chiming in here earlier with my reference to Category:Flat Earth proponents. Doctor Ferguson (who was not really a doctor) did NOT believe the earth was completely flat, instead, he thought there was some elevation change topping out at the north pole, and that the earth was SQUARE. But I still put him in Category:Flat Earth proponents and he definitely should be there. Here, if the consensus of mainstream news reporting is that someone is a climate change denier, some category seems appropriate, because it can help our readers. Nuance can be shown in article content. Indeed, it can be the case that someone falling in your category [14] (the "most reasonable" in your hierarchy) is just making an argument to support his general opposition to any intervention steps, although he actually believes like US President Trump that China invented global warming as a hoax. [1]. But if some comedian makes a random joke about global warming one day, that doesn't merit inclusion.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Orlando Ferguson died over a century ago. The category we are dealing with primarily involves living people and, under BLP, our standards are much higher. Indeed, dealing with people who expressed doubts 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago about humans causing global warming and then died presents yet another problem. The further back you go, the less certain the science was. Are they all deniers?--agr (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think you have strengthened Marcocapelle (talk · contribs)'s point above. The common thread is do nothing about climate change. A category tying them all together could have utility. (Your assertion about not finding any flat-out deniers is wacky however.) M.boli (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. As I just tried explaining to an editor who can't seem to grasp the issue....... Aside from the word "denier" being loaded with implications, it's not really accurate. For example, I have a userbox that says I am skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. According to him, I'm a "climate change denier". Skeptic means I am not convinced and have doubts. Not denial, doubts. And Anthropogenic means man-made, not all. Do I deny that there is climate change? No. Do I have doubts that it is primarily manmade? I do. But labels like "climate change denier", regardless of how many media sources recklessly use the term, is not necessarily accurate. As an encyclopedia, I think we should strive for accuracy. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The whole problem with categories that include WP:LABEL language is that we cannot provide a source at the category page as required by BLP. Yes, on the main page of a categorized BLP that should be sourced, but we're still using labeled language, so factual inclusion may not be there, just the perception from a few members of the press or the person's peers. We should not have these types of categories where inclusion is based on a subjective evaluation of the person by other sources. --Masem (t) 13:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I was a significant contributor to both discussions above, which I suggest people read, and I haven't changed my mind. I don't like BLP categories which are controversial or can be considered as derogatory, and I especially don't like them when the criteria for inclusion seemed to be subjective, ill-defined and poorly implemented. For example the orginal list included a "lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change" and also included a minor UKIP politician where the sole reference in support of the categorisation was some retweets (not even tweets) an account in his name had made. As far as I can tell the whole category seemed to be little more than a list of individuals whom some editors didn't like. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose "denier" label support other neutral categorization to be decided Wikipedia has challenges tagging people who support fringe ideas. This proposal is similar to many others I have seen. We look for third-party verification of these things, which is a bias of Wikipedia which has benefits and drawbacks. I like that Wikipedia maintains its quality control; I regret that we do not have good systems for helping researchers identify obvious information like "who has published a paper confirming a certain concept". The longer term solution to this problem that I see is modeling this kind of issue in Wikidata, probably through the meta:WikiCite project. There are maybe 500 people who have contributed significantly to that project and many more would do more if it were more developed. I think there is community consensus within that project that people want to be able to query Wikidata to generate lists of things like who affirms or rejects various positions in publication. Lists like this are likely to become part of Wikidata culture because that project has so much more power to quickly verify these claims than Wikipedia. I like that Wikidata makes it relatively easy for people to enrich data for such purposes; I regret that we currently lack training materials and that anyone wanting to do this will have to be patient and persistent as they ask questions to human for support in an environment without sufficient documentation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Support restoration (until a more neutral term is found). Understanding that the term Denier may be used subjectively, Climate change denier is a useful descriptive category when applied correctly and it is a term that is used extensively by reputable third-party sources. Until such time that a more clearly objective neutral name for the category is chosen the category and its title Climate change denier should be restored. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (~ add I think I have a problem in that I dont see the label as 'pejorative' as others do here, i just considered it as a environmental position.)
- Alternative suggestion. Since one mother category would be Category:Climate change skepticism and denial, why not call it Category:Climate change skeptics and denialists? That way, it would also contain scientists who rejected the concept before there was a consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Since the opposition seems to be based on the perception that the category itself is "perjorative", surely there is some title that won't be seen that way? Perhaps Category:People who've decided humans had a good run.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose As the title is obviously pejorative in nature, and intended to be so, and is not a self-ascribed attribute to those who would be in such a group, it violates several policies and guidelines. Sort of like having a category for "Self-Hating Gnarphists" or "Gnarphist Nazi-Fascists" or the like. Collect (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- oppose Since this is a pejorative label, it's a problem (as I said last time) that it tends to be stuck on anyone who deviates from a certain political orthodoxy, even if they agree with the core thesis of anthropogenic climate change. It's not a clear binary like "did a certain even occur" is. I doubt the will of the community to police the category even if it is very narrowly construed. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. SemiHypercube 16:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Alternative suggestion: {{Category:Climate action skeptics}} The criterion would be opposition to addressing global warming, as described by the scientific consensus. It doesn't sound pejorative, it seems to cover most of the varieties without arguing who is in and who is out. This category would apply to people where that is a substantial part of what makes them notable. -- M.boli (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- As I said 3 years ago, I tend to agree with Masem that this probably shouldn't be a category (under any name). --JBL (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose My two cents: From a neuropsychological standpoint, categorization is a natural reaction. It's really hard-wired into the brains of any animal with an amygdala, and in particular, occurs in the area here the amygdala connects to the hippocampus. This area acts like a filter of information based upon emotional saliency, before storing it as memories in the hippocampus. No information is cognized (comes into consciousness) until it passes through this area for filtering. The purpose of it is manifold, but primarily it serves as a form of file-compression (not too unlike compressing a computer file) for faster processing and easier storage. For example, when you drive through a forest, you could not possibly remember every single tree along the way. Only those things that grab your attention --that have some importance or significance (salience) to you-- are committed to memory. Everything else is erased and simply stored as generic categories, ie: spruce tress or birch trees, etc... The processes in your brain which determine what is salient and what is not are your emotions, thus what you commit to memory depends solely upon whether it invokes an emotional response or not, and therefore this area of the brain is also our emotional center.
- The purpose of categorization is to allow us to focus on the details which are important to us while discarding all of the info that we feel is unimportant, so it doesn't bog us down in the moment. That's what makes it so useful but also what makes it so dangerous. The same processes that cause us to categorize plants and animals into different taxonomical groups is exactly the same thing we use to categorize people. Thus, the emotional center of the brain is also the area where racial or other forms of hatred, prejudices and stereotypes form (all forms of categorization). When you can reduce something as complex as people to a simple label or title, it causes others to ignore all of the information involved and treat the individual as having all the characteristics placed upon that label. This is what makes it an extremely effective propaganda tool, because it turns a discussion into an us against them thing, rather than a collaboration or healthy debate of ideas, by creating an "in-group" in which "we" are all complex and individuals, and an "out-group" where "they" are all the same and (predominantly) bad. That's the way it has been used since the dawn of history to incite hatred or violence against others, from Babylon to the Romans to the Nazis to todays modern-world of political hatred.
- We need to be really --extremely-- careful when categorizing people. Categories can be a great and very useful thing, when used properly, but they can be a terrible tool for both the nefarious and those with nothing more than good intentions, alike. This is one of those categories that is made to be divisive and does more harm to the debate than good. Zaereth (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural Oppose The CFD conversation on this topic was extensive and had a large group of editors with different viewpoints, including those that came as a result of tags from biography discussion pages. While I respectfully disagree with the outcome (I favored renaming to be more neutral) the process lead to a reasonable outcome and I don't see anything that has changed recently to suggest a differnet consensus. If anyone feels the CFD was closed improperly, the right path is at WP:DRV. Thank you for tagging me to provide input; much appreciated! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose As much as I think true climate change deniers should be identified as such, I don’t like the concept of pigeon-holing beliefs into binary categories. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support restoring. I missed the original debate. After reading it and giving it some thought, I'd have voted keep. It's an identifiable and notable stance, just like Holocaust denial, and with potential to kill even more people. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Bryna Kra
Bender235 is violating WP:BLPPRIMARY by edit-warring to include a primary-sourced birthdate on BLP Bryna Kra. Beyond the sourcing issue, my impression was that we typically only include birth years, not dates, on BLPs to respect the privacy of the subjects. But as this is not obvious vandalism, I've reached the three-revert limit. Anyone else want to take it up? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- (i) Library of Congress authority files (like the one in question) aren't primary sources; they are secondary by definition. As a matter of fact, they even list the source for the information they provide.
- (ii) Contrary to your impression, we typically include the full date of birth for biographies if we find a reliable source. LOC clearly is reliable.
- (iii) The privacy concern is moot. Kra's DOB is publicly available. If it took me just one click to find it, Eve the Identity Thief will find it, too, regardless of whether we include the information on Wikipedia or not. --bender235 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, that Library of Congress source only gives the birth year, 1966, not the full DOB. If the full date of birth is used in reliable secondary sources, then it is generally okay for us to use it. Edwardx (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Under the section header "sources" (as in "sources for this information"), the LOC entry clearly states "found: Nilpotent structures in ergodic theory, 2018:ECIP t.p. (Bryna Kra) data view (b. 10/06/1966)" --bender235 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- That most certainly is a primary source. The Library of Congress uses authority control to maintain a clear language concerning authorship status for legal and filing purposes. (ie: All works are filed under Bryna Kra rather than Bryna Rebekah.) It is most certainly directly involved and not a secondary source that is reporting on the matter from the sidelines. LOC is directly involved. (Scientists, tax collectors and phone companies have sources they use and often cite, but are directly involved and do not report as an objective, one-step removed source with editorial oversight like a newspaper or book. Thus, the mere fact that they cite some sources does not automatically confer secondary-source status on them. However, not all primary sources are forbidden. Things like scientific studies or flight manuals or even the subject's own work can be used for certain info --with care. What cannot be used is stuff that may contain home addresses, contact info, names and details of non-notable people, or stuff best interpreted by someone with a proven background in translating legal jargon. That's what BLPPRIMARY, and by association NOR, is all about.) That said, as primary sources go this is similar to a congressional biography or a university profile. The source they use for the date is the subject's own book, which would be the preferred source and is probably good enough to demonstrate that the subject does not object to its being published, so I wouldn't bother removing it unless the subject comes along and actually does make a fuss. Zaereth (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Zaereth: with all due respect, I don't understand your standard for what makes a source "primary." The LOC entry in question (as any LOC entry) reports information they either received from the author, or their publisher. If that source of information is "too close to the subject," isn't most of Wikipedia then? I mean, where do you think we know DOBs of all the tens of thousands of former and current NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL players from, if not from NFL.com etc.? Sure those sources are "involved," rather than "reporting from the sideline." But honestly, what difference does it make? As I understand it so far, the only reason to not include someone's DOB is supposedly a privacy concern. But how valid is that argument if the DOB in question is readily available in easy accessible sources, "primary" (on whatever classification) or not? To me this seems more like privacy theater.
- PS: to give you my definition of "secondary sources"; it's a source that is "one step away from" (i.e., reflecting on) original research. The LOC entry above clearly meets that definition; as I mentioned, it even lists the primary source for the information they provide. --bender235 (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- No as our rules make it clear we should not (except in a few cases) accept information that has link to a subject. We should use "third party reliable sources". The issue of privacy is this, if it has appeared in public media then it has already been seen ans us repeating it is not going to make it more widely known, if however it has not received publicity then we are making the information known.Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: I'm sorry, but what's the link to the subject in this case? Or let me rephrase it: how is the Library of Congress not a third party to Mrs. Kra and us? They are, clearly more so than NFL.com is to us and Aaron Rodgers. Or are you suggesting that we should delete all currently included DOBs on all articles about NFL players and other professional athletes?
- Also, there seems to be some misconception on how the DOB information come to be on the LOC catalog. The Library of Congress didn't send some investigator spying on Kra or ferreting through personal documents. The DOB information is on LOC because Kra (or her publisher) submitted it. There is no legal requirement for this, so they must've done it voluntarily. So what on Earth is the big fuzz? --bender235 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- "he LOC entry in question (as any LOC entry) reports information they either received from the author, or their publisher" they do not produce it, they reprint it. Thus it is very much written by the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Of course it is reprinted. Do you expect some sort of contemplation and reflection over a birthdate? What kind of logic is that? The point is that this information (just as affiliation etc.) appears on LOC because the author (or somebody on their behalf) submitted it. Why would they do so if they wanted it to remain private? --bender235 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- I brought the issue to the Village Pump, see here. --bender235 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- "he LOC entry in question (as any LOC entry) reports information they either received from the author, or their publisher" they do not produce it, they reprint it. Thus it is very much written by the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- No as our rules make it clear we should not (except in a few cases) accept information that has link to a subject. We should use "third party reliable sources". The issue of privacy is this, if it has appeared in public media then it has already been seen ans us repeating it is not going to make it more widely known, if however it has not received publicity then we are making the information known.Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- That most certainly is a primary source. The Library of Congress uses authority control to maintain a clear language concerning authorship status for legal and filing purposes. (ie: All works are filed under Bryna Kra rather than Bryna Rebekah.) It is most certainly directly involved and not a secondary source that is reporting on the matter from the sidelines. LOC is directly involved. (Scientists, tax collectors and phone companies have sources they use and often cite, but are directly involved and do not report as an objective, one-step removed source with editorial oversight like a newspaper or book. Thus, the mere fact that they cite some sources does not automatically confer secondary-source status on them. However, not all primary sources are forbidden. Things like scientific studies or flight manuals or even the subject's own work can be used for certain info --with care. What cannot be used is stuff that may contain home addresses, contact info, names and details of non-notable people, or stuff best interpreted by someone with a proven background in translating legal jargon. That's what BLPPRIMARY, and by association NOR, is all about.) That said, as primary sources go this is similar to a congressional biography or a university profile. The source they use for the date is the subject's own book, which would be the preferred source and is probably good enough to demonstrate that the subject does not object to its being published, so I wouldn't bother removing it unless the subject comes along and actually does make a fuss. Zaereth (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Under the section header "sources" (as in "sources for this information"), the LOC entry clearly states "found: Nilpotent structures in ergodic theory, 2018:ECIP t.p. (Bryna Kra) data view (b. 10/06/1966)" --bender235 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, that Library of Congress source only gives the birth year, 1966, not the full DOB. If the full date of birth is used in reliable secondary sources, then it is generally okay for us to use it. Edwardx (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- It seems a perfectly fine secondary source for this purpose and anyway self sourcing for basic information such as birth dates is permitted WP:SELFSOURCE, and full dates are now common practice thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Bender235: replying to User:David Eppstein you wrote "Contrary to your impression, we typically include the full date of birth for biographies if we find a reliable source." That's wrong and David is correct. WP:DOB says "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." That's our policy and I hope you are following it. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- It seems a perfectly fine secondary source for this purpose and anyway self sourcing for basic information such as birth dates is permitted WP:SELFSOURCE, and full dates are now common practice thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: How is this related to this issue? Do you have indication that the subject complained about her birthdate included? Besides, the DOB-privacy policy is among the most nonsensical on Wikipedia, written by people who do not understand how the internet works and controversial from the start. --bender235 (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Bender235: you don't need evidence the subject complained, that bit is if they do. Which iw why it also says "by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." I'm not one that thinks that editors should just ignore part of BLP policy that they don't like. It may have been controversial in 2006, but BLP policy is taken a lot more seriously now then it was back then. If you don't like it, try to change it, don't bring up ancient threads. You should know that, you're even more experienced than me. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly: BLP is meant to be applied to be extremely cautious towards the BLP's privacy. We should assume that every BLP would object to personal details like DOB being included even if they are a matter of public gov't records. Unless the BLP themselves have said it, or the data appears in multiple RSes, we should omit completely. --Masem (t) 17:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- And to add, once a BLP becomes a bio (death + a period of 6-12 months as per BLP), then that privacy issue goes away and we can document the DOB of deceased people using public records. --Masem (t) 17:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Masem: I agree with you on privacy concerns, but unfortunately what you don't understand is that this mock secrecy over published information is mere privacy theater. If you are author X Y and you are conscious about your DOB being out in public, don't submit it to a public authority file. And we're not even discussing the fact that the thought that your DOB is private just because it isn't on Wikipedia is laughable. --bender235 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: indeed I am more experienced as a Wikipedian than you. And that BLP-privacy provision is not the only current policy that popped up out of nowhere and then stuck because of status quo bias (exhibit 1: MOS:CURLY, stating we should always use the incorrect but simpler "quote" over “quote”, whereas in every other situation we prefer the correct symbol over the simplified, e.g. en dash – and minus sign − over hyphen -, or multiplication sign × over letter x, etc.)
- That being said, correct me if I'm wrong but I am sensing an extremist reading of WP:DOB. Are you suggesting that WP:DOB now goes beyond the subject actively requesting their birth date removed, and instead us Wikipedians inferring that they want their birth date removed? Doesn't this preemptive obedience violate WP:OR at its very core? And more specifically: what makes you believe Kra objects her DOB being on Wikipedia? Clearly someone, on her behalf, submitted the information to Library of Congress (unless you are willing to assume that the LOC obtained the information without her consent). --bender235 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- There is an amount of "original research" that every editor does in adding or deciding what information to add to an article - this is allowable OR as to determine what is acceptable as to summarize the person in an encyclopedia, and how paraphrase or incorporate other facts. So we have the allowances to decide if the DOB only reasonably sourced to a gov't database is appropriate or not. And we have to consider over the last 10-some years that identity theft has grown significantly, and DOB is a critical-enough piece of information that can be used to support that. As such, we should assume that every BLP wants their identity protected unless they are in a public position where their identify is impossible to hide. Kya is certainly not well-known public person like a politician or celebrity, so we absolutely need to use care with identity information even if we have no clue on their stance. --Masem (t) 15:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the fact that Kra had her DOB submitted to LOC indicate to you that she doesn't agree with your laughable assumption that keeping it out of Wikipedia is effective guard against identity theft? Wouldn't she have had it deleted from LOC if she really objected the information to be out in public?
- And second, we do not distinguish between well-known and not-well-known people, only between those people who are notable by WP:ACADEMIC and those who are not. And for the notable ones, the same rules apply. I strongly object the idea of creating those wishy washy sub-categories on the fly only to justify application of special rules. --bender235 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- On the first point, even if Kra actually included the DOB with authority records themselves, that doesn't mean they expect it to be public. No, the LOC isn't a private database, but still its not a highly visible one. And even if they didn't add the DOB themselves, they may not be aware it is out there so haven't taken steps to remove it. We defer to represent privacy as much as possible.
- On the second point, yes, we actually do differ from public figures and non-public figures in BLP policy; there's WP:PUBLICFIGURE for this reason. --Masem (t) 16:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- You are making assumptions, to which I don't agree. Based on your reading of the situation, to how many of those authority files need the subject submit their birthdate to until we can reasonably infer that they don't share the privacy paranoia expressed by WP:DOB? Wouldn't it be a more reasonable approach to say "Kra made the conscious decision to have her DOB published in a publicly accessible record, and therefore we use the information, until she actively takes measures to reverse that decision (by filing a ticket to Wikipedia, or having the information removed from LOC)." Simply put, I strongly object the prevalent notion here that Kra and others share this ridiculous notion that protecting your DOB somehow protects you from identity theft. Most likely they are smarter than that. Why do we have to make assumptions on their behalf? --bender235 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- When I applied for my driver's license, I had to include my DOB, which I knew would be going into a public record (one that is behind a paywall but that exists). It was a "necessary evil" to follow the law. Does that mean I think I made my DOB public knowledge? No, absolutely not. Same with the LOC DOB. All this stems from the core principle of BLP to "do no harm" - assume that people want privacy of their critical information. For example, this is the same reason we don't deadname transgendered individuals unless they were public personas before transitioning. --Masem (t) 16:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- You are making assumptions, to which I don't agree. Based on your reading of the situation, to how many of those authority files need the subject submit their birthdate to until we can reasonably infer that they don't share the privacy paranoia expressed by WP:DOB? Wouldn't it be a more reasonable approach to say "Kra made the conscious decision to have her DOB published in a publicly accessible record, and therefore we use the information, until she actively takes measures to reverse that decision (by filing a ticket to Wikipedia, or having the information removed from LOC)." Simply put, I strongly object the prevalent notion here that Kra and others share this ridiculous notion that protecting your DOB somehow protects you from identity theft. Most likely they are smarter than that. Why do we have to make assumptions on their behalf? --bender235 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- There is an amount of "original research" that every editor does in adding or deciding what information to add to an article - this is allowable OR as to determine what is acceptable as to summarize the person in an encyclopedia, and how paraphrase or incorporate other facts. So we have the allowances to decide if the DOB only reasonably sourced to a gov't database is appropriate or not. And we have to consider over the last 10-some years that identity theft has grown significantly, and DOB is a critical-enough piece of information that can be used to support that. As such, we should assume that every BLP wants their identity protected unless they are in a public position where their identify is impossible to hide. Kya is certainly not well-known public person like a politician or celebrity, so we absolutely need to use care with identity information even if we have no clue on their stance. --Masem (t) 15:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Bender235: you don't need evidence the subject complained, that bit is if they do. Which iw why it also says "by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." I'm not one that thinks that editors should just ignore part of BLP policy that they don't like. It may have been controversial in 2006, but BLP policy is taken a lot more seriously now then it was back then. If you don't like it, try to change it, don't bring up ancient threads. You should know that, you're even more experienced than me. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: How is this related to this issue? Do you have indication that the subject complained about her birthdate included? Besides, the DOB-privacy policy is among the most nonsensical on Wikipedia, written by people who do not understand how the internet works and controversial from the start. --bender235 (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller:, let's take WP:DOB at face value: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources,..."
- Library of Congress is clearly a reliable source
- "... or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public."
- Unrelated The source is not linked to the subject, and we have no reason she objected the DOB being public.
- Case closed then? --bender235 (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- PS: I've followed your advise to challenge the existence of WP:DOB. Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Removal of WP:DOB.
(edit conflict)- copying and continuing my edit. @Bender251: no, I'm not saying it, I'm quoting it. A form of that statement (changed to turn bullet points into a sentence) was added just over 10 years ago.[2] The last discussion was about 4 years ago.[3] So I'm not making an extremist reading. I can see that you are unfamiliar with this part of BLP and I still don't think you understand it. User:Atlantic306 I hope you are still reading this. As for WP:SELFSOURCE, it doesn't mean that we can always take a subject's statement as a reliable source. Many people believe that they have legitimate reasons to not tell the truth about their age and when I was active at OTRS - a few years ago - we were told that we needed more than a subject's word for when they were born.This seems pretty obvious to me. Thus the LOC is not clearly a reliable source. @Masem: your thoughts on this? I agree with you that we need to use care and err on the side of conservatism with birth dates. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wait, so your position on this issue just pivoted from "Kra objects her DOB being included" to "Kra consciously submitted a wrong DOB to Library of Congress which makes LOC unreliable"? --bender235 (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've never held either position. Why do you keep putting words into my mouth? Doug Weller talk 16:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at how a DOB gets into the LOC, it looks like it is through authority control records. [4] Which can be prone to errors (they talk about "high quality data" from their originating sources) so there is a slight chance this may be wrong. I would still call this a primary source for all purposes, and BLPPRIMARY along with the other issues should readily apply. --Masem (t) 16:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- The information that the LOC records in an authority record comes from the resources they catalog, or from references sources that they access. It is therefore not a primary source. If you don't believe me, Ask a Librarian at LOC, they will confirm, as they have to me. --bender235 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Its a primary source as identified by WP's use of primary and secondary. There's no transformation of information. --Masem (t) 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- What "transformation of information"? Do you expect some sort of contemplation and reflection over a birthdate? I can't believe how ridiculous this debate has become. (PS: see here for a consensus on LOC being reliable and admissible.) --bender235 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- A DOB including a biographical sketch to discuss Kra's background and their importance would be a secondary source. Also, that discussion seems to agree with the points raised here. But even moreso, there is a key point that is missed in the wording: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." (my emphasis). Appearing only in the LOC is not "widely published". So the date should absolutely be kept out. --Masem (t) 17:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- What's the difference between a website and widely published website? How do we distinguish? Are we supposed to ask the admins for traffic statistics? Absurdities like this underscore further why we need to get rid off WP:DOB. --bender235 (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I would read "widely" here as to be either "multiple websites" or a "widely-published work" ala the New York Times or Wash Post, in the context of that phrasing. The LOC is not "widely published" in that regards. And this is not absurd at all, this is recognizing that the DOB has become a more "valuable" asset for a BLP that we better respect as much as possible. --Masem (t) 18:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- "Multiple websites?" Well, then lucky us, because the authority file of the National Library of Israel reports the same date of birth. I guess we settled the issue then, haven't we? Yet, somehow I suspect further moving the goalposts. --bender235 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I would read "widely" here as to be either "multiple websites" or a "widely-published work" ala the New York Times or Wash Post, in the context of that phrasing. The LOC is not "widely published" in that regards. And this is not absurd at all, this is recognizing that the DOB has become a more "valuable" asset for a BLP that we better respect as much as possible. --Masem (t) 18:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- What's the difference between a website and widely published website? How do we distinguish? Are we supposed to ask the admins for traffic statistics? Absurdities like this underscore further why we need to get rid off WP:DOB. --bender235 (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- A DOB including a biographical sketch to discuss Kra's background and their importance would be a secondary source. Also, that discussion seems to agree with the points raised here. But even moreso, there is a key point that is missed in the wording: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." (my emphasis). Appearing only in the LOC is not "widely published". So the date should absolutely be kept out. --Masem (t) 17:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- What "transformation of information"? Do you expect some sort of contemplation and reflection over a birthdate? I can't believe how ridiculous this debate has become. (PS: see here for a consensus on LOC being reliable and admissible.) --bender235 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Its a primary source as identified by WP's use of primary and secondary. There's no transformation of information. --Masem (t) 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- The information that the LOC records in an authority record comes from the resources they catalog, or from references sources that they access. It is therefore not a primary source. If you don't believe me, Ask a Librarian at LOC, they will confirm, as they have to me. --bender235 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Both LOC and the Isreal library are reporting the DOB from the same source, the book "Nilpotent structures in ergodic theory" that Kra wrote. So no, that's only one site. So I'm to track down where the date is coming from, and the only place it might be listed in the data view for the ECIP for that book, and nowhere else. And best I can tell that data view is simply not viewable. And it is clear that the data source is not from an LOC employee but general sharing of the CIP records between libraries. There is no way we can trust this source for a BLP. And yes, goalpost have moved over the last several years due to stronger emphasis on BLP enforcement. --Masem (t) 18:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree that there is "no way we can trust" authority files of national libraries. These institutions don't make up information out of thin air. --bender235 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the LOC and other library all include this information as a type of "chain of custody" of information in the case mistakes are made. They all appear to make sure that these records are not perfect nor of perfect quality. Are there going to be a lot of mistakes? No, of course not, but as these are all primary sources just repeating the same data point, we should be looking back for that original data point to make sure it is correct or coming from a source in the know. Which I can't find a way to do so here. --Masem (t) 19:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree that there is "no way we can trust" authority files of national libraries. These institutions don't make up information out of thin air. --bender235 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Zaereth and Edwardx: given your insistence on a reliable secondary source reporting Kra's date of birth, I wondered if this notice from the American Mathematical Society fits the bill. Given that pretty much everyone seems to disagree with me on the interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I don't trust my own judgement anymore. --bender235 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Bender235 Thanks. The AMS would appear to be a reliable secondary source, but we still have the "widely published" issue, and this one may be borderline. If someone was to add the full DOB to this article, cited with the LOC and AMS sources, I would not personally object. Many editors would like our policies to provide clear guidance in this area, and although our policies are tending to get more detailed and prescriptive over time, this will always be a grey area. It is the same with the law in general. With regard to identity theft, my understanding is that having someone's full DOB may be necessary, but it is not sufficient.
- Our readers may have a reasonable expectation of at least knowing someone's year of birth, but it would be unusual if having the full DOB materially enhanced our understanding of the subject. I often use the "birth based on age as of date" template where national newspapers (or other reliable sources) in an article published on a particular day are stating that John/Jane Doe was x years old. This produces a range of two years, and should generally suffice in the absence of anything better. Of course, those creating reliable secondary sources may well be deriving them from the same primary sources we should not be using, but they then make an editorial judgement and can be held accountable. Edwardx (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- A practical question: if "widely published" indeed refers to the number of reliable publication containing a given DOB rather than their reach (as seems to be the common understanding here), do all of these publications have to be cited in the article using footnotes? If not, how do we demonstrate for future reference that a given DOB was indeed "widely published"? --bender235 (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Ryan Maness
As the person whom this page is about, the information in the page is seriously outdated and I would like it either taken down or updated. I really do not appreciate a complete stranger having admin privileges over the content of a Wikipedia page that I did not give my permission to create in the first place.
Thank you,
Ryan Maness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.65.226 (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Naming arsonists
Comments at Talk:Hafodunos#Naming_of_individuals relating to the naming of arsonists would be appreciated. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Theodore Edgar McCarrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Theodore Edgar McCarrick contains a false statement about a living person, Donald Wuerl. The statement reads, "Donald Wuerl, McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, was suspected by some of having knowledge of McCarrick's activities, allegations which he repeatedly denied." It is in the section, Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick#Warnings_about_McCarrick's_conduct. If you read the sources provided, none of them state that Wuerl was suspected by anyone of having knowledge of McCarrick's activities. This is a false statement and needs to be deleted immediately. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Looking at the WaPo story cited in the article, the first sentence is "Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl knew of sexual misconduct allegations against ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick and reported them to the Vatican in 2004, church officials confirmed Thursday evening, despite portraying himself since last summer as unaware of any complaints surrounding McCarrick." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and that is discussed later in the article. The specific issue I am raising is whether it is appropriate to state in Wikipedia's voice that Wuerl was "suspected" before that point in time, when not a single source states that he was suspected. --PluniaZ (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe "claimed" or "believed" would be better than "suspected," just tonally? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- The problem still is that no sources state that anyone claimed/believed Wuerl was aware prior to the publication of WaPo's investigative report in January 2019. The most that can be said is that the news media asked Wuerl if he was aware of the accusations against McCarrick, and he denied any awareness. The statement would need to be rewritten as follows: "During 2018, Donald Wuerl, McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, denied having knowledge of McCarrick's activities when asked by the news media." I would be fine with that as a temporary fix to comply with WP:BLP pending the outcome of the RfC regarding whether to include this paragraph at all. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- BubbaJoe123456, the claims made by PluniaZ are once again, untrue. As I wrote in the talk page, a Washington Post article cited in the text says: "The explosive allegations against McCarrick, which include two other accusations of abusing minors as well as those of harassment of seminarians, tipped off a full-blown crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States. All along, Wuerl has largely rejected charges that he played a role in it." There can be no charges unless there is suspicion. Here's a quote from a Catholic News Agency article from September 7: "In recent weeks, Wuerl has faced questions over his knowledge of the alleged sexually coercive behavior of ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick." I still do not understand how this means anything other than Wuerl was suspected of having knowledge about McCarrick. PluniaZ, I quoted these for you on the talk page. You knew about them, So, your claim that "no sources state that anyone claimed/believed Wuerl was aware prior to the publication of WaPo's investigative report in January 2019" is entirely untrue. I offered to change the wording to "accused" or "charged with," but PluniZ ignored this suggestion. This suggests to me that PluniaZ's interest is not in conforming what we write to the sources. I'd still be fine with saying that Wuerl "faced questions' about his knowledge of McCarrick's behavior. This is the exact same wording as in the CNA article, so I don't see what objection anybody could possibly have to it.
- The problem still is that no sources state that anyone claimed/believed Wuerl was aware prior to the publication of WaPo's investigative report in January 2019. The most that can be said is that the news media asked Wuerl if he was aware of the accusations against McCarrick, and he denied any awareness. The statement would need to be rewritten as follows: "During 2018, Donald Wuerl, McCarrick's successor as Archbishop of Washington, denied having knowledge of McCarrick's activities when asked by the news media." I would be fine with that as a temporary fix to comply with WP:BLP pending the outcome of the RfC regarding whether to include this paragraph at all. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe "claimed" or "believed" would be better than "suspected," just tonally? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and that is discussed later in the article. The specific issue I am raising is whether it is appropriate to state in Wikipedia's voice that Wuerl was "suspected" before that point in time, when not a single source states that he was suspected. --PluniaZ (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- PluniaZ, it is my hope that you will not remove this content once the protection expires. Besides myself, two editors, including an administrator, have objected to your attempts to game the system, and another one here seems skeptical of your rationale. You clearly lack consensus. Display name 99 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- No source states that Wuerl was suspected, charged, accused, claimed, believed or anything else prior to the publication of the Washington Post's investigative report on January 10, 2019. The closest any source comes to saying that is the 1/10/2019 WaPo article, which says, "All along, Wuerl has largely rejected charges that he played a role in it." But that article does not identify who made such charges, when, or in what form. As such, it is insufficient grounds for Wikipedia to make a claim that anyone "charged" Wuerl. The only facts available indicate that Wuerl was asked by the news media whether he knew about McCarrick's activities, and McCarrick denied knowing. That is all we are permitted to say, and the sentence needs to be immediately revised to comply with WP:BLP. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- The sentence you quoted supports the article's current phrasing. Even though WaPo doesn't say who made the charges, it says that they were made. Otherwise, how could they have been denied?BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- No source states that Wuerl was suspected, charged, accused, claimed, believed or anything else prior to the publication of the Washington Post's investigative report on January 10, 2019. The closest any source comes to saying that is the 1/10/2019 WaPo article, which says, "All along, Wuerl has largely rejected charges that he played a role in it." But that article does not identify who made such charges, when, or in what form. As such, it is insufficient grounds for Wikipedia to make a claim that anyone "charged" Wuerl. The only facts available indicate that Wuerl was asked by the news media whether he knew about McCarrick's activities, and McCarrick denied knowing. That is all we are permitted to say, and the sentence needs to be immediately revised to comply with WP:BLP. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Update - I am fine conforming the passage in the article on McCarrick to the corresponding passage in Donald Wuerl written by Display name 99. There is no reason for the passages to be different. In order to comply with WP:BLP, this change should be made immediately. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Amy Rutberg
This article Amy Rutberg is quite casually written and needs a serious overhaul. It relies too much on quotes and is missing quite a fair amount of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.255.13.115 (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Possible defamation of academics
This is a bit complicated. It involved a controversy concerning Mića Jovanović, a Serbian academic who "esigned after allegations that he had falsely claimed to have a doctorate from the London School of Economics and had supervised a plagiarised thesis." Mića Jovanović#Controversy I reverted this edit[5]@ "n the meantime, Professor Dragan Pavlovic from Paris published number of articles in Belgrade daily newspaper "Politika" and a book (Etika naučnog teksta - Ethics of scientific text, Čigoja štampa, Beograd, 2015) demonstrating that the claims against Jovanović were probably false. In addition, they were made by the researchers who falsely presented themselves as "Professors", while they were lecturers or senior lecturers in UK (Uglješa Grušić, Branislav Radeljic, Marko Milanovic). Pavlovic also demonstrated that the analysis of the procedure involved, was unprofessional and did not demonstrate misconduct of Jovanovic.(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270161770_Dobronamerni_verovatno_lazni_docentiprofesori_i_slaba_analiza_plagijata_Tehnicki_dodatak) and similar ones from 3 other articles.
Below is the discussion User:Sorbonneparis started on my talk page:
Sorry, on the page "Mica Jovanovic", you misunderstood the correction and were probably not informed about the regulations. Equivalent means just "equivalent" but it does not mean to have a power to be used in a foreign country without original qualification. Would you please examine my comment below, consider putting back my changes and remove your warning addressed to me. One of the "Professors" was senior lecturer in UK. Radeljic was Senior lecturer in UK. The other were not, but they also claimed to be "Professors". Yet even if some title may be equivalent, this does not mean it could be used publically in other country and the law forbids to use the titles that are not recognised by some official body (University or similar) of the country where they are used. For example, in Germany:
Using foreign university degrees, titles, or positions in Berlin is regulated in Sec. 34a of the Berlin Higher Education Act (Berliner Hochschulgesetz, BerlHG). It is prohibited to use a degree, title, or position in a way that deviates from the provisions in Sec. 34a BerlHG and can even have criminal consequences (Sec. 132a German Criminal Code, StGB). University degrees and titles that were purchased may not be used. According to Sec. 34a(1) BerlHG, a foreign university degree, title, or position may be used regularly • only in the original form, that is, precisely the form in which it was awarded, • with the inclusion of the university that awarded the degree (known as the “origin information”). Reference: Senatskanzlei Berlin, Berliner Rathaus, Jüdenstr. 1, 10178 Berlin: https://www.berlin.de/sen/wissenschaft/en/university-studies/artikel.711552.en.php
In EU the rules are similar: "If your profession is regulated in the EU country where you want to practice, you may need to apply to get your professional qualification recognized there." (reference: https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/professional-qualifications/regulated-professions/index_en.htm)Sorbonneparis (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Sorbonneparis: I don't have time tonight to respond. It would be useful if you showed me where they "falsely" claimed to be professors. In any case Wikipedia cannot say that any of "the claims against Jovanović were probably false. In addition, they were made by the researchers who falsely presented themselves as "Professors", while they were lecturers or senior lecturers in UK (Uglješa Grušić, Branislav Radeljic, Marko Milanovic). Pavlovic also demonstrated that the analysis of the procedure involved, was unprofessional and did not demonstrate misconduct of Jovanovic." in its own voice. I don't know what qualifies Pavlovic to even make such comments, but these are very serious allegations and we must have much more than a paper on Research.Gate to represent Pavlovic. I'm speaking as someone with over 200,000 edits here and . Doug Weller talk 19:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I think that I gave enough proofs that the text that I proposed should be accepted. It is hard to understand your method and the reasons behind your resistance to accept the text that I proposed. Here below are other elements that will help you make your decision.
I give below the citations and the links to the sources where the mentioned authors were falsely represented as "professors". As you can see, sometimes the British title was also given, which was correct, but stating the Serbian "equivalent" was false; it should have been stated that this is not the title but the eavivalent. In the Serbian press the British title was always ignored and the title misrepresented; and the authors never presented a correction. There were hundreds of such misrepresentations in the Serbian press. On the contrary, Mica Jovanovic mentioned just one single time that he defended PhD at LSE and did not claim that he obtained a diploma! Yet he was attacked for misrepresenting his qualifications. (see in the book "Ethics of scientific texts"). AUTHORS misrepresentations (examples): "Autori: dr Uglješa Grušić (docent / lecturer, Univerzitet u Notingemu), dr Branislav Radeljić (vanredni profesor / senior lecturer, Univerzitet Istočni London) i Slobodan Tomić (doktorand, Londonska škola ekonomije i političkih nauka)" IN: https://pescanik.net/kako-do-doktorata-lako-slucaj-ministra-stefanovica/
"By Dr Uglješa Grušić (lecturer, University of Nottingham), Dr Branislav Radeljić (senior lecturer, University of East London) and Slobodan Tomić (PhD candidate, London School of Economics and Political Science)" IN: https://pescanik.net/getting-a-phd-in-serbia-the-case-of-minister-stefanovic/
"Dr Marko Milanović is a lecturer (and from August this year associate professor) at the University of Nottingham School of Law. Peščanik.net, 07.06.2014."
In fact it is stated in Serbian also: Dr Marko Milanović je docent (a od avgusta ove godine vanredni profesor) na Pravnom fakultetu Univerziteta u Notingemu. IN: https://pescanik.net/rector-mica-baron-von-munchhausen-or-how-the-ministers-supervisor-misplaced-his-own-doctorate/ "Autor je vanredni profesor Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Notingemu." Peščanik.net, 27.12.2016." https://pescanik.net/lazni-doktorati-u-tihom-mulju/ ____________________________________________________
Who is DR: PAVLOVIC: Dr. Pavlovic is apparently a scientist with considerable reputation: https://dal.academia.edu/DraganPavlovic His CV and publications may be seen here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303370465_CV-Doctoral_students-List_of_Publications or here: https://www.academia.edu/5284534/My_links_my_CV_my_homepage_DIALOGUE_homepage or here https://www.academia.edu/23804137/Nasilje_nad_Filozofijom_autori_D._Pavlovi%C4%87_i_S._%C5%BDunji%C4%87_-_Full_text_PDF_from_2016_in_Serbian
The mentioned book "Ethics of scientific text" is here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297739842_Ethics_of_scientific_text_-_the_first_chapter_in_English Or here: https://www.academia.edu/23129099/Ethics_of_scientific_text_-_First_chapter_in_English
Or at Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/Etika-naucnog-teksta-Dragan-Pavlovic/dp/8653101861
Finally, the claim that Mica Jovanovic left Serbia is just false. He is in Serbia, rector of Megatrend university that is the second best private university in Serbia at this time!! Sorbonneparis (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- User:Sorbonneparis I think this needs to be discussed at our BLP noticeboard, would you like to just copy this to WP:BLPN? Doug Weller talk 15:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and done it myself. This seems to be a good faith editor who hasn't tried to reinstate it but I'm concerned that these accusations that the lecturers are being falsely accused. I note that the UK until fairly recently had far fewer professors than the US. See this comparison[6] - the situation changed partially because Oxford and Cambridge senior lectures objected strenuously over looking junior to their American colleagues. Obviously the wording about "demonstrating" is NPOV and would have to be changed but that's an easier issue. Also of course and relevant to any BLP issues is WP:UNDUE. Who else makes these claims or supports Pavlovic? Finally, I suspect that there's an element of nationalism involved but we can't resolve that here. Oh, if anyone thinks they can format the material copied from my talk page so that it looks better, feel free. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: I read this article carefully. I also made some minor fixes, like fixing a dead link and similar. I see nothing exceptionally problematic in that article. All claims reference reliable sources. This is obviously someone connected to Megatrend University who wants to whitewash the article about its rector. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Please remove the accusation ("This is obviously someone connected to Megatrend University who wants to whitewash the article about its rector.). This is something defamatory, since not necessarily true.Sorbonneparis (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and done it myself. This seems to be a good faith editor who hasn't tried to reinstate it but I'm concerned that these accusations that the lecturers are being falsely accused. I note that the UK until fairly recently had far fewer professors than the US. See this comparison[6] - the situation changed partially because Oxford and Cambridge senior lectures objected strenuously over looking junior to their American colleagues. Obviously the wording about "demonstrating" is NPOV and would have to be changed but that's an easier issue. Also of course and relevant to any BLP issues is WP:UNDUE. Who else makes these claims or supports Pavlovic? Finally, I suspect that there's an element of nationalism involved but we can't resolve that here. Oh, if anyone thinks they can format the material copied from my talk page so that it looks better, feel free. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Mica Jovanovic article
I request that when presenting "Mica Jovanovic controversy", both side of the arguments be given. Both may be defamatory though, but Wikipedia is just presenting the arguments and not endorsing them. Therefore equally to the accusatory arguments (that are potentially defamatory) my defending arguments (for which I demonstrate that are not defamatory) should be also given.
I introduced a paragraph that was deleted with the claim that it was defamatory. I claim that my addition is descriptive, as the article on Mica Jovanovic is, and that the book of Dr. Pavlovic just describes both sides of the argument.
I think that I gave enough proofs that the text that I proposed should be accepted. It is hard to understand your method and the reasons (Doug Weller) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller) behind your resistance to accept the text that I proposed. Here below are other elements that will help you make your decision.
This has been my addition to the article on Mica Jovanovic: In the meantime, Professor Dragan Pavlovic from Paris published number of articles in Belgrade daily newspaper "Politika" and a book (Etika naučnog teksta - Ethics of scientific text, Čigoja štampa, Beograd, 2015) demonstrating that the claims against Jovanović were probably false. In addition, they were made by the researchers who falsely presented themselves as "Professors", while they were lecturers or senior lecturers in UK (Uglješa Grušić, Branislav Radeljic, Marko Milanovic). Pavlovic also demonstrated that the analysis of the procedure involved, was unprofessional and did not demonstrate misconduct of Jovanovic.
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270161770_Dobronamerni_verovatno_lazni_docentiprofesori_i_slaba_analiza_plagijata_Tehnicki_dodatak) ____________________________________
I give below the citations and the links to the sources where the mentioned authors were falsely represented as "professors". As you can see, sometimes the British title was also given, which was correct, but stating the Serbian "equivalent" was false; it should have been stated that this is not the title but the eљvivalent. In the Serbian press the British title was always ignored and the title misrepresented; and the authors never presented a correction. There were hundreds of such misrepresentations in the Serbian press. On the contrary, Mica Jovanovic mentioned just one single time that he defended PhD at LSE and did not claim that he obtained a diploma! Yet he was attacked for misrepresenting his qualifications. (see in the book "Ethics of scientific texts"). AUTHORS misrepresentations (examples): "Autori: dr Uglješa Grušić (docent / lecturer, Univerzitet u Notingemu), dr Branislav Radeljić (vanredni profesor / senior lecturer, Univerzitet Istočni London) i Slobodan Tomić (doktorand, Londonska škola ekonomije i političkih nauka)"
IN: https://pescanik.net/kako-do-doktorata-lako-slucaj-ministra-stefanovica/
"By Dr Uglješa Grušić (lecturer, University of Nottingham), Dr Branislav Radeljić (senior lecturer, University of East London) and Slobodan Tomić (PhD candidate, London School of Economics and Political Science)"
IN: https://pescanik.net/getting-a-phd-in-serbia-the-case-of-minister-stefanovic/ "Dr Marko Milanović is a lecturer (and from August this year associate professor) at the University of Nottingham School of Law. Peščanik.net, 07.06.2014."
In fact it is stated in Serbian also: Dr Marko Milanović je docent (a od avgusta ove godine vanredni profesor) na Pravnom fakultetu Univerziteta u Notingemu.
IN: https://pescanik.net/rector-mica-baron-von-munchhausen-or-how-the-ministers-supervisor-misplaced-his-own-doctorate/ "Autor je vanredni profesor Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Notingemu." Peščanik.net, 27.12.2016." https://pescanik.net/lazni-doktorati-u-tihom-mulju/
____________________________________________________
You asked Who is DR: PAVLOVIC:
Dr. Pavlovic is apparently a scientist with considerable reputation: https://dal.academia.edu/DraganPavlovic
His CV and publications may be seen here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303370465_CV-Doctoral_students-List_of_Publications
or here: https://www.academia.edu/5284534/My_links_my_CV_my_homepage_DIALOGUE_homepage
The mentioned book "Ethics of scientific text" is here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297739842_Ethics_of_scientific_text_-_the_first_chapter_in_English
Or here: https://www.academia.edu/23129099/Ethics_of_scientific_text_-_First_chapter_in_English
Or at Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/Etika-naucnog-teksta-Dragan-Pavlovic/dp/8653101861
Finally, the claim that Mica Jovanovic left Serbia is just false. He is in Serbia, rector of Megatrend university that is the second best private university in Serbia at this time!! Sorbonneparis (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
__________________________________________
NEW ADDITIONS: My intervention is based on Dr. Pavlovic book Ethics of scientific text: https://www.amazon.com/Etika-naucnog-teksta-Dragan-Pavlovic/dp/8653101861
It appears that Dr. Pavlovic is serious scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lpBAhP0AAAAJ&hl=en
What concerns your argument, let me repeat: The article on Wikipedia only describes and does not make any particular claim about truth or falsehood of the exposed facts. Some facts are "against" Mica Jovanovic (main article), the other facts are in defence of Mica Jovanovic (addition of mine).
The first claims seem to me to be false (and as such may be defamatory) since Mr. Jovanovic was accused of misrepresentation - to have claimed to possess a PhD from LSE. Apparently he did not claim this at all (as Pavlovic demonstrated) but only to have defended a thesis at LSE (odbranio je = defended it, see below).
This was also stated by the Professor Wood who was even cited in the accusatory article! http://www.istinomer.rs/stav/analize/ovako-je-govorio-mica-jovanovic/
The second claim seems to me to be right, because the accusatory(s) of Mr. Jovanovic falsely represented their titles in Serbia. Their titles could have been equivalent to the claimed titles in Serbia, but they were not officially recognised as such, so they formally misrepresented their titles in Serbia (see above). Professor Wood claims that Dr. M. Jovanovic presented his thesis (see below).( Most probably he was demanded to introduce some amendments - I guess).
Therefore the accusations were in fact not stating the trut so they were potentially difamatory. My citing the claims of Dr. Pavlovic are neutral, but the claims of Dr. Pavlovic are obviously true (the British Doctors obviously misrepresented their titles in Serbia).
I would be grateful if you would examine the case again, remove warning on my TALK and put back my text in the article on Mica Jovanovic.
In addition, the last sentence in the article on Mica Jovanovic is false too. He did not leave Serbia and he is in Serbia and his University is actually rated as second of private universities in Serbia.Sorbonneparis (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Therefore, I propose the following: Profesor Dragan Pavlović (Dalhousie University, Канада) claimed in his book "Ethics of scientific text" that the accusations were unfounded. It was claimed also that the lecturer who incited those accusations (Marko Milanovic) did not have Serbian equivalence to his British qualifications, and that he also were committing similar felony as the accused. (Etika naučnog teksta, Čigoja štampa, Beograd, 2015)Sorbonneparis (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- All controversial claims on Wikipedia should be cited to reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, especially claims about living persons. All of the sources above fail one or more of those requirements: either they are not reliable, not independent, not reputable, are self-published, or require some amount of synthesis to imply a conclusion. If the claims about Jovanović are false, then that must be clearly and unambiguously stated in a reputable source. Woodroar (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not agree. The references are either that have already been given by the people who attacked Jovanovic, or are really highly reliable references. The burden of proof is on you. Here is the proposed text, slightly corrected to be added to the article on Mica Jovanovic:
In the meantime, Professor Dragan Pavlovic from Paris published number of articles in the most prominent Belgrade daily newspaper "Politika" and a book (Etika naučnog teksta - Ethics of scientific text, Čigoja štampa, Beograd, 2015) demonstrating that the claims against Jovanović were probably false. In addition, they were made by the researchers who falsely presented themselves as "Professors", while they were lecturers or senior lecturers in UK (Uglješa Grušić, Branislav Radeljic, Marko Milanovic) what is eveident from their original article in "Pescanik". Pavlovic also claimed that the analysis of the procedure involved, was unprofessional (Pavlovic teaches scientific method at number of Universities) and did not demonstrate misconduct of Jovanovic.
- I hope that this will be accepted.Sorbonneparis (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Per WP:BURDEN, "[t]he burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If you would like to use your proposed text, you must (a) cite which references support each claim and (b) convince other editors that the references are reliable for those claims. Our article on Mića Jovanović currently cites sources like The Australian, Al Jazeera, and Reuters, which are usually considered acceptable for controversial claims about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thomas Rosica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Thucyd is repeatedly reverting Thomas Rosica to an extremely biased, negative version and refusing to discuss the changes on the Talk Page. His proposed version of the article includes criticisms of Rosica that are not cited at all, that are cited to notoriously unreliable LifeSiteNews, and that contain impossible to verify claims, such as the claim that "almost everything Rosica has published has been found to include substantial plagiarism." Please revert these changes. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, anyone? Is the community just going to sit by and let BLP pages be used as a forum for people to launch their personal attacks against notable individuals? --PluniaZ (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- I looked over the different revisions and I agree that User: Thucyd's revisions have a strong negative bias that is not in accordance with WP:NPOV. In addition, some of their statements are not found in the sources they are attributed to (for example, the source for "At least eight retractions were issued by publishers" doesn't say anything about that at all).
- I do think that your revision removes some content that is sourced and should be kept, though - notably Rosica's claim that he had an advanced degree from a university which said he did not. Perhaps that part could be left in the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking at this. The claim that Father Rosica does not have an advanced degree from École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem is poorly sourced. The first source given is notoriously unreliable LifeSiteNews. The other source given, Catholic News Agency, does not provide enough information to verify the claim. Their article simply says that "its director told journalists that while Rosica had been enrolled there, he had not earned a degree of any kind." A Google search reveals that LifeSiteNews is the only source that claims to have spoken directly with the École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem, so Catholic News Agency is simply repeating the claims of LifeSiteNews (which should raise the question of whether Catholic News Agency is a reliable source). Moreover, Father Rosica's official bio on his company's website states: "he is Elève Titulaire de l’École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem [1994]." It seems clear that this is just another smear job by notoriously unreliable LifeSiteNews. --PluniaZ (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Looking into it further, you may be right on this - while there are a number of sources going back years that describe Rosica as having an advanced degree from the Jerusalem university, I am unable to find a source where Rosica himself is quoted as saying it, so it's not possible to conclude that he lied about it. The closest I find is a video of an interview where he says he did the "last part of my studies" in Jerusalem, but doesn't specifically say that he was awarded a degree there. And if the Catholic News Agency merely took the story from LifeSiteNews, which does indeed have a bias and is known to be unreliable, then I would agree that it should be excluded from the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- A) User:Lilipo25 writes that: "some of the statements are not found in the sources they are attributed to "at least eight retractions were issued by publishers". this conservative estimate is in the article by Prof Michael Dougherty and by Prof. Joshua Hochshild published in the National Post: "to date publishers have issued eight retractions for plagiarism in response to our work; 20 retraction requests are pending, under review by publishers, and we expect even more to follow." [7]
- You sourced the sentence "At least eight retractions were issued by publishers" (written as a stand-alone paragraph) with two citations. The second one is this [8] and it says nothing about eight retractions being issued. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- I am glad that User:Lilipo25 and me can agree: a leading expert on plagiarism, Prof Dougherty, and Prof. Hochshild explicitly wrote that at least eight retractions were issued by publishers. The second older source only mentioned three.Thucyd (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- You sourced the sentence "At least eight retractions were issued by publishers" (written as a stand-alone paragraph) with two citations. The second one is this [8] and it says nothing about eight retractions being issued. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- B) Then User:Lilipo25 writes that he was "unable to find a source where Rosica himself is quoted as saying it". One can easily find this information in his books: for example in his book "Stay with us" published in 2018: "Fr. Thomas Rosica, CSB, holds advanced degrees in Theology and Sacred Scripture from Regis College in the University of Toronto, the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem here. One can read the same claim over the years: in CatholicIreland in 2012 [9], in the Jesuit review America in 2014 [10], in 2018 [11], in 2019 [12]
- Where does this same information come from? From the official website of Salt and Light... User:PluniaZ argues that Rosica's official company's website does not mention his award from the Ecole Biblique. Indeed. This mention was removed after the scandal, as can easily be shown thanks to web.archives.org: "He holds advanced degrees in Theology and Sacred Scripture from Regis College in the Toronto School of Theology [1985], the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome [1991] and the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem [1994]." [13]
- Thank you for providing those links to sites/articles, but I'm afraid it's the same problem with most of them - Catholic Review Ireland and the Jesuit Review America don't directly quote Rosica as saying that he has an advanced degree from the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem. They say he does, but it's not possible to conclude from them that he ever made that claim himself. As I said, I found a video interview where he did say that he did "the last of my studies" there, but didn't say he earned a degree. It's therefore possible that someone writing about him originally made a false assumption and then that information was copied by other sites and writers.
- The archived Salt and Light one, as it is a website for his own foundation, might be usable if you can find a source other than LifeSite News (which has a strong bias and has been called a "known purveyor of misleading information" by Snopes) that reports that the Ecole Biblique denies he was awarded a degree there. Again, we can't conclude that he himself wrote the information on the S+L site, but I think it might be acceptable to include it in the Wikipedia article as long as it is made clear that it was on the website and not stated directly by him, and the tone is kept to WP:NPOV. For example: "The Salt and Light website in 2018 listed among Rosica's advanced degrees one from the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem, but in 2019, EBAF's director stated that Rosica was not awarded a degree from the institution, although he had studied there from 1991 to 1992" (adding an appropriate source for the second part of the sentence, if one can be found). Lilipo25 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Lilipo25. Being biased does not mean that your are unreliable. LifeSiteNews in this specific case is very reliable. The evidence is that CNA uses LifeSiteNews and you would have to show that CNA is unreliable. Good luck with that.
- You forget the fact that this degree appeared not only for years on the website of his own foundation but also, as shown, in his books.
- In this video, Rosica explicitly says: "I did my degrees in Scripture in Toronto, and in Rome and Jerusalem."
- Therefore CNA is reliable enough. I agree with your suggestion. We can write: "Some of Rosica's books and The Salt and Light website in 2018 listed among Rosica's advanced degrees one from the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem, but in 2019, EBAF's director stated that Rosica was not awarded a degree from the institution, although he had studied there." Thucyd (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have access to his books so can't verify one way or the other what is included in them (I'm afraid the link you provided doesn't show that the book says that at all - it's just a link to a website that sells the book that says it). At any rate, "some of Rosica's books" isn't really specific enough - you could maybe write it as "In his book Stay With Us, Rosica wrote..." Just be careful that it is actually something he wrote in the book, and not a blurb or preview on the dust jacket/cover, as those are included by publishers and not written by the authors themselves
- A) User:Lilipo25 writes that: "some of the statements are not found in the sources they are attributed to "at least eight retractions were issued by publishers". this conservative estimate is in the article by Prof Michael Dougherty and by Prof. Joshua Hochshild published in the National Post: "to date publishers have issued eight retractions for plagiarism in response to our work; 20 retraction requests are pending, under review by publishers, and we expect even more to follow." [7]
- Looking into it further, you may be right on this - while there are a number of sources going back years that describe Rosica as having an advanced degree from the Jerusalem university, I am unable to find a source where Rosica himself is quoted as saying it, so it's not possible to conclude that he lied about it. The closest I find is a video of an interview where he says he did the "last part of my studies" in Jerusalem, but doesn't specifically say that he was awarded a degree there. And if the Catholic News Agency merely took the story from LifeSiteNews, which does indeed have a bias and is known to be unreliable, then I would agree that it should be excluded from the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking at this. The claim that Father Rosica does not have an advanced degree from École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem is poorly sourced. The first source given is notoriously unreliable LifeSiteNews. The other source given, Catholic News Agency, does not provide enough information to verify the claim. Their article simply says that "its director told journalists that while Rosica had been enrolled there, he had not earned a degree of any kind." A Google search reveals that LifeSiteNews is the only source that claims to have spoken directly with the École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem, so Catholic News Agency is simply repeating the claims of LifeSiteNews (which should raise the question of whether Catholic News Agency is a reliable source). Moreover, Father Rosica's official bio on his company's website states: "he is Elève Titulaire de l’École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem [1994]." It seems clear that this is just another smear job by notoriously unreliable LifeSiteNews. --PluniaZ (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- I do think that your revision removes some content that is sourced and should be kept, though - notably Rosica's claim that he had an advanced degree from a university which said he did not. Perhaps that part could be left in the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- I just don't know that you can say a source is "reliable in this particular instance" - they are either reliable or they are not, and if they are not (and independent evaluators of reliability like Snopes say that LifeSite is not), then you have to assume they might not be in this particular instance. Also, if they are unreliable, then saying that another news agency took a story from them is not evidence that they are reliable in this instance. You need to find a reliable source saying that EBAF states he was not awarded a degree. Have he or his representatives or the church acknowledged or responded to the EBAF statement anywhere? If so, that could possibly be used. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- I can assure you, from personal experience and knowledge, that the bios on the dust cover are always either written or explicitly approved by authors. And that a false claim made in an official video by Rosica is always pronounced by Rosica ;)
- Sorry, but "personal experience and knowledge" of it's "always done like that" can't be used to prove verifiability. If the words are not his own, you can't claim he said it in the book. You can, however, use the video as a source if you directly quote him saying words that he spoke in the video (see my comments below about citing a Youtube video), so I don't think you need to use the books anyway in order to get the information in. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Reliability always depends on topics. For example, the New York Times is not highly reliable when writing a piece on Catholic theology or canon law (do I have to list all the blunders?). Instead, on those topics, Catholic News Agency is trustworthy.
- The fact that the Salt and Light website quickly modified Rosica's bio after the scandal shows the reliability of the article written by LifeSiteNews and used by Catholic News Agency. Thucyd (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- No. I'm sorry, but you can't use reasons like "they changed it after the scandal" as proof of reliability. It may seem obvious to you and me that this is significant, but it isn't actual proof that meets any Wikipedia standard. But as I said above, I think you could use LifeSite if you explicitly state they are the source in order to keep the tone neutral.
- I can assure you, from personal experience and knowledge, that the bios on the dust cover are always either written or explicitly approved by authors. And that a false claim made in an official video by Rosica is always pronounced by Rosica ;)
- I just don't know that you can say a source is "reliable in this particular instance" - they are either reliable or they are not, and if they are not (and independent evaluators of reliability like Snopes say that LifeSite is not), then you have to assume they might not be in this particular instance. Also, if they are unreliable, then saying that another news agency took a story from them is not evidence that they are reliable in this instance. You need to find a reliable source saying that EBAF states he was not awarded a degree. Have he or his representatives or the church acknowledged or responded to the EBAF statement anywhere? If so, that could possibly be used. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- I am attempting to write out an acceptable paragraph as an example, but I've run into another problem now - Wikipedia rules strongly discourage using a Youtube video for a source and say to find the original source of the video to cite. Unfortunately, that episode of the show 'Subject Matters with Sebastian Gomes' appears to have been removed from the Salt + Light website, so I'm afraid you may have to use the Youtube video - there's no actual blanket ban, so it isn't a direct rule violation (you can't link to it, though, either in the article or the reference). So in my personal opinion, I would say the following would be acceptable, if you source all three sentences individually with {1) the Youtube video, (2) the Wayback Machine page of the website from 2018. and (3) the LifeSite article:
- In 2016, Rosica was interviewed on the Salt + Light Media video series 'Subject Matters with Sebastian Gomes' and stated "I did my degrees in Scripture in Toronto and in Rome and Jerusalem".(1) In 2018, the Salt + Light website listed among Rosica's degrees one from the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem.(2) In 2019, it was reported by LifeSite News that the École Biblique, while confirming that he had studied there from 1991 to 1992, denied that they had awarded him a degree.(3) Lilipo25 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- C) I am sure that User:PluniaZ is going to admit that in this case ultra-hyper-super conservativeLifeSiteNews and CatholicNewsAgency were highly reliable sources ;) Thucyd (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- No reliable source says that Rosica has been found to have lied about a degree at Ecole Biblique. Wikipedia articles are not an appropriate venue to list everything a person has been accused of doing wrong. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- The sentence deleted by user:PluniaZ does not mention a lie:"In March 2019, LifeSiteNews reported that Rosica, who claimed to have earned an "advanced degree" from the École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem, had no degree from the school." The facts in this sentence are true and sourced with a reliable source. Thucyd (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- No reliable source says that Rosica has been found to have lied about a degree at Ecole Biblique. Wikipedia articles are not an appropriate venue to list everything a person has been accused of doing wrong. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Frankopan family : 'Doimi de Lupis's name claiming'
WP:NPOV Section has very negative bias, multiple defamatory opinions presented as fact, some possibly defamatory claims about the family not sourced at all.
Negative bias: "the family falsely presents itself" / "members of de Lupis family managed to get presented [to the Pope] not by their original name yet as Frankopans" (it was their legal name at the time)
No source: "Louis Doimi de Lupis together with his wife and children eventually started to use the title of Prince"..."which is a royal title that only the heir apparent of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine could illegitimately claim" (stating that there are online sites where they are referred to as Prince or Princess is not proof they themselves were using the titles)
Opinion: "trying to save the reputation of his family name, Louis's cousin Mirko denounced" (assumes that the family's reputation was destroyed by the using of the name, not a fact) / the family "influenced with false information the publishing of a book with the intention to distort history about these two families" (possibly defamatory opinion, their intentions cannot be established as fact)
Also, section is repetitive and overly long - a brief, NPOV description of the controversy would suffice, instead of what currently reads as a lengthy hit piece on the family. User keeps reverting all efforts to make the article more neutral and remove unsourced claims.
Same user has also repeatedly removed the one sourced quote from a member of the Frankopan family - from Doimi de Lupis' son, Peter Frankopan - about the name controversy, as it gives the other side of the issue: "We were given the name Frangipani by the Pope in 1425. Then in 1671, the other branch of the family had their heads cut off. We lived in Dalmatia, along the coast, minding our own business. We always had the same name."Gapper, John (April 19, 2019). "Silk Roads author Peter Frankopan: 'We're in trouble in the long term'". Financial Times. Retrieved May 29, 2019. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- See also this post from last year--Auric talk 21:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you - the biased editing in violation of WP:NPOV has been going on for a long time on all of the Frankopan family pages - this one and the three for individual members of the family, Peter Frankopan, Ingrid Detter de Frankopan and Lady Nicholas Windsor, so I guess it's not surprising that there have been previous reports about it. All attempts to improve the articles to a NPOV are reverted by a single user. For the moment, work by several editors has improved the three individual pages and that user is concentrating their efforts on this Frankopan family page.
- Part of the problem is that since the sources they use for their edits (when they use them at all) are almost all in Croatian, it is difficult for most editors of this English-language Wikipeda to evaluate how reliable those sources are or if they even say what the article attributes to them. But regardless, the article has a strong negative and biased tone and states possibly defamatory opinions as fact. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting, both Saluspopuli and now Lilipo25 are claiming and advocating the same thing, which is against what's written at the section, supported by reliable sources, as well as facts. By the way, Saluspopuli disruptive edit and removal was on two occasions ([14], [15]) reverted back by editor and admin because the information is "very heavily documented". The editor Lilipo25 was also extensively answered at the talk page as well, proving his claims are mostly false.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- At no time did you "prove" that any claims were false - or that your opinions were supported by "facts" - in the Talk, Miki. You merely continued insisting you were right and edit warring while doing it, so I opened this page so other unbiased editors could review the article instead of continuing to pointlessly argue with you. Please allow them to do so. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Also, I just looked at User:Saluspopuli's edit that you linked yourself, and they didn't say any of the things I have said at all - they argued with you over the title of the section, which I have not disputed, and then blanked it, which I have never done (Also, the person who reverted their blanking does not in fact appear to be an Admin, and they only said that Saluspopuli shouldn't have blanked the entire section because "much" of it was sourced, and told the two of you to take it to the Talk page, so that appears to not be an accurate characterization of your dispute with Saluspopuli). If you are implying we are the same person using sock accounts - and I have not encountered them before now, for the record, and have no other accounts nor ever have- I would caution you to be careful, as that edges toward a personal attack.Lilipo25 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Almost all the complaints at the talk page were proved point by point, with the extensive quotation of RS, to be completely false. This is an example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, not to mention that editor is making psychological projection as is constantly insisting that his personal point of view is right while not substantiating it with any RS, not to mention it is completely contradicted by all the RS. The editor Lilipo25 is not getting the point by describing the Salupopuli's extensive removal of the content merely as "argument over the title of the section", he also falsely claimed that he did not do such an extensive removal ([16]), and the previous editor tediously pushed the false family agenda also ignoring to get the point, from that we are not dealing with "living members of the Frankopan Family" to Lilipo25 it's only "adoption of name", to claiming that information is "not adequately resourced and refers to tabloid gossip", "disparaging newspaper articles", "offensive and irrelevant remarks". I did not imply these users are related merely that we already dealt with such unsubstantiated and false criticism, also, I was not present at all during the Saluspopuli's case, which is ironically another false claim. However, that's not even the last one as the first revert back was by an admin, while the second by an editor who did not claim at all "that Saluspopuli shouldn't have blanked the entire section", that's another his example of not getting the point.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Miki, I am not going to continue this pointless tit-for-tat with you here - that isn't what this page is for. I will tell you again to stop the WP:PERSONAL. I do not believe you are qualified to evaluate and diagnose my psychological state based upon disagreeing with me on a Wikipedia article, and that is highly inappropriate.
- Almost all the complaints at the talk page were proved point by point, with the extensive quotation of RS, to be completely false. This is an example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, not to mention that editor is making psychological projection as is constantly insisting that his personal point of view is right while not substantiating it with any RS, not to mention it is completely contradicted by all the RS. The editor Lilipo25 is not getting the point by describing the Salupopuli's extensive removal of the content merely as "argument over the title of the section", he also falsely claimed that he did not do such an extensive removal ([16]), and the previous editor tediously pushed the false family agenda also ignoring to get the point, from that we are not dealing with "living members of the Frankopan Family" to Lilipo25 it's only "adoption of name", to claiming that information is "not adequately resourced and refers to tabloid gossip", "disparaging newspaper articles", "offensive and irrelevant remarks". I did not imply these users are related merely that we already dealt with such unsubstantiated and false criticism, also, I was not present at all during the Saluspopuli's case, which is ironically another false claim. However, that's not even the last one as the first revert back was by an admin, while the second by an editor who did not claim at all "that Saluspopuli shouldn't have blanked the entire section", that's another his example of not getting the point.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Also, I just looked at User:Saluspopuli's edit that you linked yourself, and they didn't say any of the things I have said at all - they argued with you over the title of the section, which I have not disputed, and then blanked it, which I have never done (Also, the person who reverted their blanking does not in fact appear to be an Admin, and they only said that Saluspopuli shouldn't have blanked the entire section because "much" of it was sourced, and told the two of you to take it to the Talk page, so that appears to not be an accurate characterization of your dispute with Saluspopuli). If you are implying we are the same person using sock accounts - and I have not encountered them before now, for the record, and have no other accounts nor ever have- I would caution you to be careful, as that edges toward a personal attack.Lilipo25 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- (I only looked at Saluspopuli's part of the revisions you linked - I mistakenly assumed you were referring to a dispute you had with them because you said that we both say the same things. I don't know why we need to be upset over what another user said to someone else before either of us was around if that's the case, but it really doesn't seem worth arguing about either way).
- This section is for one purpose only: to ask the Wikipedia community to look over the current article and judge whether or not it violates WP:NPOV, so let's allow that to happen. I will just say that the article specifically names and makes claims about Ingrid Detter de Frankopan and Peter Frankopan, both of whom are Living Persons and members of the Frankopan Family, which is the subject (and title) of the article currently at question. Please allow other Wikipedia editors to read the article and the Talk page if they wish and evaluate it now. I promise right now that I will abide by whatever consensus is arrived at and I hope you will do the same, and we don't need to argue with each other about it at all any more, okay? Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, is this some funny game for you? Are you deliberately distorting what other editors have to say or do you have a problem with understanding? How can you "allow" something to happen or "disallowing" others basic things such as to read the article and talk page? Are you aware of how much pointless nonsense you write? You are constantly writing about the editors and not the content, constantly misinterpreting, misunderstanding, making misassumptions, not listening to what other editors have to say, you began and continued this "pointless tit-for-tat", you have been told several times to stop the PERSONAL, although it cannot be correctly categorized as such. You have been noted several times to start a dispute resolution. Also, they are not "living members of the Frankopan family" as they are Doimi de Lupis family members falsely claiming to be Frankopan's. I will not waste any more time replying here.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you want a dispute resolution started, then just start one already. I don't know why you keep ordering me to start one when you are perfectly capable of doing it yourself if that's what you want. In the meantime, I will ask yet again that you stop the personal attacks. And I am not debating whether or not they are descendants of the original Frankopans here - merely pointing out that the article makes claims about Living Persons and therefore comes under WP:BLP. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, is this some funny game for you? Are you deliberately distorting what other editors have to say or do you have a problem with understanding? How can you "allow" something to happen or "disallowing" others basic things such as to read the article and talk page? Are you aware of how much pointless nonsense you write? You are constantly writing about the editors and not the content, constantly misinterpreting, misunderstanding, making misassumptions, not listening to what other editors have to say, you began and continued this "pointless tit-for-tat", you have been told several times to stop the PERSONAL, although it cannot be correctly categorized as such. You have been noted several times to start a dispute resolution. Also, they are not "living members of the Frankopan family" as they are Doimi de Lupis family members falsely claiming to be Frankopan's. I will not waste any more time replying here.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- This section is for one purpose only: to ask the Wikipedia community to look over the current article and judge whether or not it violates WP:NPOV, so let's allow that to happen. I will just say that the article specifically names and makes claims about Ingrid Detter de Frankopan and Peter Frankopan, both of whom are Living Persons and members of the Frankopan Family, which is the subject (and title) of the article currently at question. Please allow other Wikipedia editors to read the article and the Talk page if they wish and evaluate it now. I promise right now that I will abide by whatever consensus is arrived at and I hope you will do the same, and we don't need to argue with each other about it at all any more, okay? Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Does anybody other than the same two of us who are in disagreement over this article have time to go take a look at this section and give an opinion here on whether or not it meets WP:NPOV? It would be much appreciated, as the two of us are never going to reach a consensus alone. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
"Self-identified" Native American ancestry
There are several long-running discussions regarding the categorization of people who have Native American ancestry but are not members of a tribe or nation, including active ones at WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and Categories for discussion (permalinks). I'm concerned that the current approach of labeling these individuals as "self-identified" descendants raises BLP concerns since the term is almost always unsourced and seems to be intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of their ancestry. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Andre Morgan factual inaccuracies.
Hello, We've been attempting to amend/remove the page about Andre Morgan (Movie Producer) as some of the facts reflect information about the subjects personal and professional life that are inaccurate.
If there's any way you might be able to assist us in amending/removing the entry, we would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteCatProds (talk • contribs) 20:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- As your account's previous edits were over a year ago, it is unclear what problems you have with the current article and what you wish to see changed. I recommend you list your concerns at Talk:Andre Morgan, with references to correct information wherever possible. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I know Scientology isn’t held in high regard in many places including with Wikipedians, but this article is a cesspool of unsourced “facts” and POV tone. It really needs to be refactored with a flamethrower. Short of that, it belongs in your watch list. That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Wilfred Reilly
I would be grateful if someone could review my recent edits at Wilfred Reilly. I may have got it all wrong but much of what was there seemed somewhat weird to me, eg: excessive reportage of self-published works and of criticism directed at him by organisations such as judaswatch and counter-currents. I'm not into US politics or the alt-right etc, so my edits have been mostly a gut reaction thing, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- I cleaned up the article further.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Another editor and I have a disagreement with this edit. I think it's defamatory. And, I do believe that the subject of the article likes his privacy. I would like to know what other's think, since this is a BLP. nepaxt 01:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see a defamation or a privacy issue here. Still, I agree with you that the information should not be included in the article as it is not encyclopedic and is in my opinion a case of WP:SYNTH by the editor. The article does not explicitly state neither one of the two statements. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it's defamation, but I'm not sure it belongs either. I've taken it out, along with the discussion about what his mother was once thought to be worth. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- I am quite sorry the other editor will not talk on the talk page. I waited about a week for a reply to my attempt to discuss this with him. In any case, we are not in any disagreement about the fact the fellow does not have a photo on the Forbes' list. I removed that. As far as I can tell (since he will not talk to me), he objects to reporting that Forbes' gives Lukas Walton their lowest ranking for charitable giving. That seems notable. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
(collapse) I apologize for the lack of response. But, I am quite busy in real life. I thought the defamation would be related to the charity issue. Thanks. nepaxt 00:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- It seems important to me. Further, Forbes' went to the trouble of doing the calculations. This sort of implies that they too thought such information is important. Surely they would not have printed such a thing if they thought it was defamatory. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Again @PaulinSaudi:, the issue is not defamation. the problem is that you should not extract conclusions from the sources that are not explicitly mentioned by those sources. If a score is mentioned elsewhere within the text and neither in that article or in other sources there is text assessing that score (comparing it to peers or mentioning how high or low it is), your observation that is the lowest given by that publication is not relevant and it should not be added to an encyclopedic BLP. See WP:SYNTH. That is the main reason why it can't be added, but also, please keep in mind that not all sourced information should be included in a biographic article (please refer to WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE for future reference). Regards.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- We have one link that shows this fellow scored a "one" in charitable giving. We have another link that shows a "one" is the lowest possible score. Would it be better if I provided both links? Of people on the Forbes' list, this gentleman is among the least charitable. This is true. It is not trivial. It is backed up by solid cites.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- For the third time. please refer to WP:SYNTH:
- We have one link that shows this fellow scored a "one" in charitable giving. We have another link that shows a "one" is the lowest possible score. Would it be better if I provided both links? Of people on the Forbes' list, this gentleman is among the least charitable. This is true. It is not trivial. It is backed up by solid cites.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Again @PaulinSaudi:, the issue is not defamation. the problem is that you should not extract conclusions from the sources that are not explicitly mentioned by those sources. If a score is mentioned elsewhere within the text and neither in that article or in other sources there is text assessing that score (comparing it to peers or mentioning how high or low it is), your observation that is the lowest given by that publication is not relevant and it should not be added to an encyclopedic BLP. See WP:SYNTH. That is the main reason why it can't be added, but also, please keep in mind that not all sourced information should be included in a biographic article (please refer to WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE for future reference). Regards.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
- For any further discussion please use the talk page of the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for telling me to stop talking to you. I am not synthesizing anything. The Forbes page on Mr. Walton rates him a "1." nepaxt asked what that rating means. I provided a cite to another page at Forbes. It seems if I provide one cite that is insufficient. If I provide two that violates WP:SYNTH. This strikes me as strange.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Answered at Talk:Lukas_Walton#Edit_War?. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for telling me to stop talking to you. I am not synthesizing anything. The Forbes page on Mr. Walton rates him a "1." nepaxt asked what that rating means. I provided a cite to another page at Forbes. It seems if I provide one cite that is insufficient. If I provide two that violates WP:SYNTH. This strikes me as strange.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- For any further discussion please use the talk page of the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I request the deletion of the Jonathan Mitchell article on the following grounds; No NeutraL Point of View - The article was created by a friend of Jonathan Mitchell who shares a similar ideology. The article creator has also cherry picked criticisms from the source material so as not to include those that challenge Jonathan Mitchell.
No Verifiability - The primary source for the article is a single interview piece with no apparent fact checking done within the article (citation 2). Citation 7 references the primary source at the beginning before moving onto another subject. There is no direct quote for citation 6. In citation 8 Nick Cohen makes a single reference to the article Jonathan Mitchell writes in the Spectator (citation 5), Nick Cohen is also a blogger for the Spectator. Citation 9 is just a letters page.
The article claims he wrote three books, names two and only one of which has a Google result. The School of Hard Knocks is only listed on his website and his Wikipedia page. The link on his website doesn't link to the book. The article also claims he's published 25 short stories based on the interview (citation 2) even though according to Jonathan Mitchell's website it's only 23. In both instances the short stories aren't named or any details given about their publication.
Not a public figure - Jonathan Mitchell is an author of a self published book that he stated on Twitter sold less than 250 copies and he has a blog. His Twitter account has been active since 2009 and has less than 1,000 followers. Outside of the Spectator Jonathan Mitchell is not a featured contributor in any other publication. He's not been the subject of an interview since 2015.
It's worth pointing out that the person who wrote this article has added Jonathan Mitchell as a critic in both the Neurodiversity and Neurodiversity Wikipedia pages
Mattevansc3 (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know. I think he's borderline. He wrote this [1] for LA Mag, and he's covered pretty deeply in this [2] Newsweek story. (Although I am pretty involved in autism Twitter, maybe I'm overestimating something here). And yeah, I remember the drama around its creation on Twitter and the circumstances of were questionable at best, but the article doesn't look too bad to me.
References
- ^ Mitchell, Jonathan (2010-09-01). "Autism: Still Waiting". Los Angeles Magazine. Retrieved 2019-06-05.
- ^ EST, Erika Hayasaki On 02/18/15 at 6:30 AM (2015-02-18). "The Debate Over an Autism Cure Turns Hostile". Newsweek. Retrieved 2019-06-05.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
- Writing his own article is self publishing and does not meet the requirements of a reliable source. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources ;
How to meet the requirement An article must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if:
Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication. Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding first-party sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials. Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective. Based upon: These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance. Once an article meets this minimal standard, additional content can be verified using any reliable source. However, any information that violates What Wikipedia is not must be removed, regardless of whether or not it is verified in reliable third-party sources.
There is only one third-party source in the article, the Newsweek article, so it doesn't meet the sources requirement. The Newsweek article does not verify any comments made by Jonathan Mitchell so it does not meet the Based Upon requirement. The Newsweek article does not discuss fact checking or its standards of fact checking meaning it doesn't meet the Reliable requirement.
Regarding the article itself. What is the title of the 3rd book Jonathan Mitchell had published? What are the names of the 25 short stories he had published? Where are the sources to verify that these exist and were published? Where is the source that verifies School of Hard Knocks exists and was published? Why is no mention made that Mu Rhythm Bluff was self published? Where are the sources to verify that Jonathan Mitchell is qualified to write blog entries about "autism including the neuroscience of the disorder and neurodiversity movement."?
The article uses a single interview as its main source, it makes claims without providing independent sources to verify them, the article writer has a stated COI with Jonathan Mitchell which makes this more of a Vanity Press and outside of their usage of the #AutisticDarkWeb Twitter hashtag Jonathan Mitchell has no notable presence within Neurodiversity or autism. His blog hasn't been the basis of any academic study or think piece by a professional with links to autism or neurodiversity research.
Mattevansc3 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This article, about a college professor in my community, seems to have been "edited" roughly 50 times in one day by trolls - several of whom have been cited by Wikipedia before - who removed all comments about past publications, debates with the alt-right, anti-racism, etc. What the hell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.55.89 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Had a quick look, it appears more WP:NPOV and less attacking now. A lot of the content removed and tidied was done by experianced editors.
- I see you have now replaced everything, I will leave it to other users to access your replacements. I will note that disputed content when removed from a BLP should not be replaced without discussion and wp:consensus. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- I reported this article here yesterday (see section above). I left a few comments on the talk page but am very unhappy about how it looks following the IP's edits. Whereas I have no COI in this, it seems that the anon may have. - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- 67.131, you wrote in an edit summary The same user, utterly unaffiliated with the source, seems to continue editing. On WP, being utterly unaffiliated with a source (whatever you meant by source in this context) is generally a good thing for a user. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest tends to mess things up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- 67.131, you (or someone with your IP) said that Reilly is "a prof of [yours]" in this edit summary. If that's the case, you should be very careful to avoid Conflict of Interest issues when editing his article, particularly if he's still your professor, and has the ability to affect your grade. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The article glosses over credible claims that the subject's "heroic act" never actually happened. It cites the relevant sources but does not plainly describe the issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Looks a bit BLP1E to me ClubOranjeT 04:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- ClubOranje I considered BLP1E but the exposure of the fraud has given the subject news coverage over a significant timespan, so I'm not sure a BLP1E deletion argument is valid. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Gente de Zona
Gente de Zona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WP:NPOV Honestly, it's worth visiting this article for an example of how to avoid deifying the subjects of BLPs. I tried to fix it, but the article in question was completely shot through with laughable WP:PUFFERY and still needs a serious overhaul in the textual components (the old version that was slightly worse). I'm not up to the job now, but I felt I would be amiss to let it go unreported, so I learned how to make my first discussion board post. Yay! Anyways, the article needs someone with a knowledge of the band and their place in music, both Cuban and otherwise, which I lack. Huge thanks to whoever does end up editing it, as the only good thing about it is that it's not long. The Average Gamer (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Wow. I can only assume that was written by their paid publicist. The whole article is one big ego-stroke. And where is the sourcing in the article body? That's the second article I've seen this week with just a list of references at the bottom that aren't linked anywhere in the text, so there's no way to tell where any bit of information came from. I don't think I can take that mess on, but you're right - somebody should. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Good call. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Some input on the prose and sources added here would be appreciated. I've reverted for now since the text introduces a bunch of subjective fluff, and the only source that isn't a blog or op-ed appears to be this one, which has its own problems (see Talk:Cathy Newman#Callaghan source). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Article not constructed from Neutral POV, created and entirely written by person with a conflict of interest in the article "Dudley Politics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_LowePete Lowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.61.47 (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Blatant use of WP:NPOV and WP:PUFFERY for use in a political campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.216.21 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate your thoughts on this new article. Very simply he does not seem very notable except for recent news events. Perhaps at the very least it deserves a "Recentism" tag, if not speedy deletion.--''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- There was already a deletion discussion open for that article. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Chambers (Mayor of Carbon Hill, Alabama). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
My concern is three-fold:
- the article has raised concern as being a Coatrack, an attack page and/or POV Fork. The entire Mental health section is based on opinions and speculation with claims of mental illness and dementia, most of which were made by his detractors/opposition, and presented as generalizations instead of being directly attributed to the person who made the claims as required by BLP.
- the material is UNDUE, and appears more as gossip than encyclopedic information. There is far too much coverage of unfounded claims of dementia and other speculative mental issues/personality disorders which were made by observers who never actually examined him whereas the actual medical exams have proven otherwise, and have debunked the claims. Why keep such nonsense in the pedia?
- in keeping with MOS, we should at least try to maintain some form of consistency with section titles and encyclopedic content. Good models to follow are the articles of former presidents. For example, the mental issues published by RS regarding Hillary Clinton & Bill Clinton. The inclusion of the material was handled properly, kept to a minimum and neither have standalone articles that focus specifically on their health as does Trump. I'm of the mind the article should be nominated as an AfD-merge. Atsme Talk 📧 19:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)